I mean if someone does consider their video a purely artistic endeavor, then they just shouldn't monetize it. If it's a case like here where the money would have been nominal, then it shouldn't matter. And if they have an issue with not monetizing it then they're looking to make money off of it, and so it would certainly be commercial use.
Or let's say you upload the video to YouTube. This is your only video, you don't monetize it. But by YouTube hosting it, people go to YouTube where they will now see other videos on the side bar. They click one and it is monetized. Because of your video, YouTube made some money (even if it is a fraction of a penny).
What if you used the video in a portfolio to get a job. Maybe it was the pièce de résistance that won you the job. You used it to secure financial gain... should that count as commercial use?
2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation.
3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.
The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service.
>3
Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?
It's kind of like saying a person can go buy a lump of clay, but if they turn it into a vase, then they can't sell it.
Thus, the flight itself isn't being monetized. My point is that the FAA thinks it has authority to regulate artistic endeavors in this case, because they choose to define the flight's nature retroactively, when in essence, the flight itself is not the commodity, nor is the product of the flight the actual commercial product...I mean, tying a camera to a balloon and then making a video of that runs afoul of the FAA with this/your logic?
That is precisely how all regulations work that make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial activity.
Heck, what if flying a drone on my own time helps me relax, which makes me more productive at my normal desk job?
In my opinion, if you fly the drone with the intend to use the resulting footage in any commercial product (e.g. a _monetized_ youtube video), then that flight was commercial in nature. And because we can't measure intent, we have to assume that every flight that results in a commercial product was started with the intend of producing that product.
Maybe in some cases you can make a point that the flight was primarily for enjoyment and the video was just a byproduct. That might be a viable argument for a paraglider without established audience, but it's harder to defend for a drone with a camera strapped to it.
It seems to me this is a bit of a mixed bag here, and in which case there's a clear pattern, footage shot, non-commercial use first... meaning intent can be shown.
What I'm curious about, though, is if the video is considered an artwork, can the FAA reasonably use their authority to classify the flight as commercial in nature?
As in, if the purpose of the recording was not simply for profit, but profit comes by way of the artistic contribution (e.g. editing, adding a soundtrack, creating a montage for entertainment) then it's not really a "commercial flight" but simply a personal use resulting in a commerically viable product. There are some hairs to be split in this distinction I think. I mean, taking a video out the window of a personal / private aircraft is suddenly under the FAA's purvue by implication? I don't think they would be wise to go that route, but if they are, that'd be good to know in a hurry. There are a LOT of YouTube videos that suddenly run afoul of an overly broad interpretation, I'd wager.
I'm not claiming to have the last word on this, but rather using my inherent stubbornness, creative background, and understanding of intellectual property / fair use / artistic case law as factors in the discussion. Hmm. Seems like a fun debate, and one that could be productive!